Web-Companion "Essential EU Law in Charts"
Details...Dear Reader of "Essential EU Law in Charts, 2nd Lisbon edition, 2010". Please take note of the following updates and corrigenda:
Typographical error | p. 297
The box entitled “Challenging the definition” (right column, fourth row) should read:
Challenging the definition
• Opinion of AG Jacobs in UPA (2002): proceedings before national courts may not provide effective judicial protection. Therefore, reconsideration of the case law on standing under Art. 263 TFEU; less strict conditions would be appropriate.
• GC (then: CFI): broader approach in Jégo-Quéré (2002).
The box entitled “But: ECJ adheres to its approach” (right column, fifth row) should read:
But: _CJ adheres to its approach
UPA (2002), Rothley (2004), Jégo–Quéré (2004).
Main argument: the ECJ cannot change the Treaty.
.
.